Here is a comment from reader Dave on yesterday’s post about blogs leading the mainstream press to the US Attorney’s story …
“Brian I agree with you that stories are missed by the mainstream press and also agree that this is a worthwhile topic for discussion. But you owe your readers a small disclosure on your source.
“The Center for American Progress is a left-leaning group with seed money from George Soros. Of course any opinions from them will be anti-Bush and in complete agreement with the Dems.
“I tend to be moderate, and have my own issues with the Bush administration. The danger of the blogsphere is exactly what you just did, you did not describe your source. You made is sound like fact when your source has their own bias.
“I have no problem at all with your own left-leaning opinion and take on topics. I enjoy reading your thoughts. But do your readers a favor and give a little background on your sources.
“What would be an interesting topic is the mix of politics and justice. We all know that presidents nominate supreme court justices based on their political leanings. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing happened with the Attorney General’s staff throughout history. That makes for an interesting discussion and debate.”
First, let me say, Dave, that I appreciate the civil tone. It would be nice, not to mention more productive, if the various sides in ideological disputes could always interact like adults instead of barroom brawlers. So, thanks.
But while, yes, I could (and maybe should) have identified Eric Alterman and the Center for American Progress as a “left of center columnist for a left of center think tank as well as the left of center magazine, The Nation”, and Josh Marshall’s “TPM Muckraker” as a “left of center news blog” and the Project for Excellence in Journalism as, “a non-partisan, non-ideological and non-political media research organization funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts”, I consciously short-circuited all the descriptors and qualifiers because my point was basically that a certain prominent blog, (Marshall’s TPM Muckraker), had persisted mightily, done its own reportorial footwork in places and succeeded in pushing the commercialized mainstream press to recognize and cover a story of far greater relevance than Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears, etc.
Now, okay, Dave, you got me on me, a proud liberal, patting fellow travellers like Alterman and Marshall on the back for their insights and hard work. “My team” scored. But for the record, back last spring when Michael Brodkorb of MinnesotaDemocratsExposed.com was dropping a series of “scoops” about Keith Ellison I … grudgingly … complimented him on his work. And that was to his face and on the public airwaves.
Do I think this US Attorneys matter is a far bigger fish than Ellison’s parking tickets/messy paperwork? You bet I do. And I defy anyone to make the case it isn’t. Never the less, Brodkorb did the footwork, (or had it dropped on him … and that counts), and the mainstream press piled on afterwards. In the end the public decided, resoundingly, that they didn’t much give a damn about Ellison’s parking tickets. But they at least had information on which to base their judgment.
I’ll grant you the obvious that Alterman and Marshall are no fans of the Bush administration. But neither are they particularly star struck by the big foot mainstream media. Pick three or four of their most recent columns or postings and decide how badly the allegedly liberally-biased press is under-performing in their estimation.
More to the point, the fact that they are partisans, in the same way Brodkorb is a partisan, doesn’t automatically render their information inaccurate. What is true is true. Whether it is George Soros or Richard Scaife throwing money into the budget, all that should matter is whether the information is true. (I’ll take Soros’ record on that count over Scaife’s every day of the week.)
I should add, that IMHO, the public’s ability to assess truth as it is presented by the mainstream press has been seriously clouded by hyper-partisan performers who incessantly accuse the NBCs and Star Tribunes of the world of sloppiness and “bias” while offering only the quintessence of commercialized, bowdlerized information themselves. By that of course I mean the crowd that will say anything and pander to any degree of ignorance to make another buck.
Alterman and Marshall are not playing the Hugh Hewitt-Sean Hannity agitator-entertainer game. Facts are critical to their credibility, and part of being a discerning citizen/news consumer is developing the ability to concede a fact regardless of who provides it.
As for the Supreme Court Justices point. Various anything-for-a-buck
bloviators are trying to push the argument that “everyone replaces US Attorneys”. This is a conscious smokescreen. Aka: bullshit. As Marshall has been reporting for some time, and as the mainstream press is now confirming and adding to its reporting, the idea of flushing out eight US Attorneys in one fell swoop … in mid-administration … , (much less all 93), is completely and totally unprecedented. And that is a fact.
Leave a Reply